Minutes April 28, 2016

1) EBA

EBA taxonomy version 2.4.1 is about to be updated with small tweeks to a few validation rules – instance compatible
This version is to be used for three months (Sep-Oct-Nov)
EBA version 2.5.0 will similarly be updated soon with equally a few minor tweeks to validation rules – instance compatible

The group discusses experiences with national differences in the actual adoption of a new taxonomy version (or fix) because the decision to deploy any taxonomy is a national one.
In some countries it may occur that assertions are or are not deactivated in the same way as in EBA’s official validation rules list.

This topic will be discussed during the Frankfurt days.
2) ECB

Discussion on AnaCredit.
At this moment, ECB has not (yet) proposed a pan-European technical standard to collect AnaCredit data.
It needs to be said that the collection channel (European System of Central Banks) is different from the one we are used to (Supervision) for COREP and FINREP data.
Therefore, the top-down approach is different.
The group discusses the observations so far:
-          ECB has not taken a decision on the standardisation of this topic
-          Meanwhile, ECB is being influenced by individual parties to choose another path away from XBRL
-          AnaCredit is aiming to collect data volumes which are larger than the ones we are used to.
-          XBRL as a standard has already solved the large volume” challenge in different ways. In the world, several data collection systems exist with XBRL and with large data volumes: size doesn’t matter.
-          The question is more: what level of upfront validation and openness hereof does ECB want to reinforce? Data can be sourced in many ways.
-          XBRL as a standard is solving a lot of the traditional garbage-in-garbage-out challenge.
-          XBRL opens in a standard way to all stakeholders involved the validation rules applied.
-          It may also be worthwhile to look at overlapping data definitions and cross-checks with existing EBA (and EIOPA?) taxonomies. The business case to converge to one standard to reduce burden for reporting institutions could emerge in such a case.
-          “The use of enumerations reduces the size of instance documents”.
-          Is there an implication on ISO2022?

The group suggests to discuss this in Frankfurt and involve XII in the discussion.

3) EIOPA

EIOPA will deactivate 8 more assertions in v2.0.1 in the next period.

Draft taxonomy 2.1.0 will be released during the XBRL week in Frankfurt.

  • This taxonomy will use the assertion severity specification which is newly released by XII, this is to facilitate plausibility checks and trigger ‘warnings’.
  • Vendors should prepare the implementation of the assertion severity specification.

EIOPA has announced to provide maximum one corrective release per year and one adaptive release per year.

The group elaborates on T4U as a distortion of the solutions market.

Altough EIOPA is expressing intentions to “want to stop the development and support of T4U”, small parties and consulting companies are pressing for continued support as they wish to continue to avail themselves of free software and support.

The group argues that this situation distorts the market for commercial solutions: “free software paid by the European tax payer” rather than “an open source development”. This empedes the working of the open market to develop competitive solutions.

All parties in the group have experienced the loss of opportunities due to the availability of the free T4U software.
The major beneficiaries are consulting companies who are able to sell services around free software and therefore have a competitive advantage.

From a technical perspective, the published version of the open source code is missing a vital part which makes the open source version only usable for the current taxonomy and not the future ones. The missing part is only available to an inner circle.

Hence, few people from the group have expressed the desire to participate to EIOPA’s T4U meet the market event.

However, EIOPA’s wish to decommission T4U can be reinforced by the awareness of the existing market solutions.

Therefore, Eurofiling proposes to generate a factual assessment of commercially available software by creating a list of companies that “offer solutions to deal with Solvency II and XBRL”
It is hoped that this list will demonstrate to EIOPA the real nature of the solutions (still) in the market today and restore the balance.

4) National Specific Templates

The group noted that a number of NCAs are using XBRL to collect additional local data

The approaches adopted are not coordinated and do not necessarily follow EBA or EIOPA architectures

Countries include – France, Belgium and Ireland

5) XBRL week in Frankfurt

Explanation on the different days during the XBRL week in Frankfurt. 5 days of meetings.

Don’t forget to register via the link (https://eurofiling.typeform.com/to/wZeSWy)

Warm recommendation to participate also to the Networking Dinner which will take place in a tower frequently occupied by ECB with a quality caterer.

Next call is scheduled for May 26, 2016.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.